Data issued last week without fanfare by both the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit has confirmed that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Data issued last week without fanfare by both the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit has confirmed that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

The article also discusses at great length the additional influence the sun and its sunspot cycle might have on the climate, something I have discussed here at great length. However, the above factoid is the article’s most important data point.

Share

34 comments

  • I noticed that the Daily Mail refrained from giving their sources. Not terribly surprising, but still a hassle.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ – U of East Anglia
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ – The Met

    Neither of these two places have anything even remotely similar to what this article describes. I have been unable to find any report or release of data. All search paths lead back to this article and nothing else. The information contained in both places, UEA and the Met, completely contradicts what the article claims about the temperature trend. The only thing I could find was

    http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=422939&SubjectId=2 – UK News Distribution Service

    which says that yes, the sun’s expected minimum will decrease temperatures by 0.08C. But that is the only part of the article that correlates with reality. There was no other press release claiming that we need to worry about a deep freeze during cycle 25, much less anything to back up the claim that “release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years” Nothing from UEA, nothing from the Met, nothing whatsoever. By all appearances, this is an almost entirely fabricated piece of denialist bull. The Daily Mail strikes again!

  • Rene Borbon

    The denialist bull is your comment. The solar cycle is well doumented, what isn’t documented is proof supporting the extraordinary claim that the Earth is warming due to the CO2 we exhale and coming out of tailpipes. Read the article again, see where people are directly quoted. No further reference is needed unless you expect a comprehensive dissertation refuting an unsubstantiated claim, global warming is due to tailpipe emissions.

  • Jim

    The problem is that temperature data does not start with the year 1998.

    http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/sst_global.jpg
    That is cherry picking a point that will show the conclusion you want. If you chart temperature difference to the temperature average, it shows a clear increase. And yes, there are any number of points along that line that seem to show the start of a trend downward. If I was living in 1957, at that time I also could have said that since 1942, temperatures have been declining, and there is not a warming trend. But guess what- temperatures continued to increase after 1957.

    Picking 1998 as the starting point is not statistically valid. Here is a good article from 2009, a year in which skeptics were saying similar things. Statisticians were given temperature data although they were not told it was actual temperatures that they were looking at.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/#.TyanPIE_fc0
    They found the trend was continuing upward, and not downward.

  • Phil Berardelli

    The central point here is that within this decade we should have a much better sense of whether CO2 buildup is strong enough to withstand the drop in solar activity. I have covered this topic over the course of the past 15 years, and the more I learned the more I became convinced that cooling, not warming, is where we’re headed and that it’s a far, far greater danger than warming. I’ve also thought that if “global” warming actually was occurring and was due to human activity, that would be a good thing, because it would head off another ice age, of which we’ve had more than 20 in this latest global climate cycle. All of civilization emerged during this past interglacial. If the cycle continues, are we ready for mile-thick glaciers crushing many of the world’s great cities? Or sea levels dropping 300 feet? Personally I’d rather have a warm and fertile planet than a cold and barren one — something, by the way, that atmospheric CO2 helps us avoid.

  • Rene Borbon

    The global warming claim is based on a extraordinary claim that CO2 has more powerful influence on the Earth’s climate, than the Sun. This claim is outlined at the following NASA website, where they claim that only 10% of the warming is due to solar radiance.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/#no2

    Here is what is stated: ‘Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn’t appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.’ They also say this: ‘Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.’ So NASA says the Sun’s radiance has increased, but only accounts for 10% of any warming, but then also says satellites show the sun’s radiance has decreased. Shows conflicted thinking behind, at best when they say the Sun’s radiance has increased, but has decreased.

    The evidence for the global warming claim is shaky, at best. When considering these claims about global warming, we need to be very skeptical of this extraordinary claim. We must think on a long time scale, remembering that thick ice sheets covered North America and Europe as recently as 18,000 years ago:

    http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age.html

    What caused these ice sheets to melt? Neanderthal SUVs and factories? Regular natural cooling and warming is normal for the Earth.

    The simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case, a complex argument trying to prove CO2 is the main cause of so-called climate change — is the argument that requires a VIGOROUS defense, not the simpler possibility — that the Sun and the Earth’s rotation are the likely cause of climate variability.

  • Jim

    Rene-
    I think the point here is that if you track sunspot activity (energy output) to actual temperatures, one would have expected to see a decline in temperatures during the last 30 years. But the opposite happened:
    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
    In fact, from 1920 to 1960, we did see the correlation relative to the suns activity. But from 1980 on, the opposite happened. Solar activity lessened, but change in temperature actually jumped rather dramatically.

  • Jim,

    Your statement that solar activity “lessoned” since 1980 is false. See the solar cycle graph here:

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/old-media-old-news

    The sunspot cycle was very active through the end of the 1990s. In fact, as recently as May 2009 half the solar scientist community predicted the upcoming solar maximum to be one of the most powerful in history, in line with what they had come to expect for decades.

    NOAA's May 1, 2009 solar graph

    The graph above, which was posted on the NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in May 2009, shows two predictions for the upcoming maximum, one very high and one somewhat low. The scientists at the time could not come to a consensus (oh that word again!), so they posted both predictions. Nonetheless, half the community expected an intense solar maximum, as they had been used to seeing repeatedly throughout the 20th century.

    It is only in the past decade that the sun’s sunspot production plummeted, coincidently matching with the same drop in temperatures since 1998. The graph you use as an example distorts and hides this fact.

  • Rene Borbon

    Jim-

    I find it interesting you chose to produce the Stanford graph which excludes temperature and solar activity for the past 11 years. The point Mr. Zimmerman has made, in agreement with the MailOnline article, is that warming has dropped off and actual temperature decline has occurred, simultaneous with the CO2 increases. That’s a big problem for warming alarmists because if CO2 rises but the global temperature drops, then CO2 and other greeenhouse gases cannot have the 90% influence on the ‘warming’ climate that NASA and other so called scientists say.

    Another big problem for these scientists is that they need to also explain what caused the warming since the last ice age peak approximately 18,000 years ago. Was it CO2? I never hear any of these consensus scientists make that claim.

    Bottom line, before we make decisions about the global economy and political systems, based upon an extraordinary claim that greenhouse gases produced by man are causing global warming or climate change, we want to make very sure we are confusing short-term natural climate change with our own activities. A good step in this process would be to understand what caused previous cooling and warming cycles.

    But if these scientists agenda is purely political, then we cannot reason with them.

    Respectfully.

  • Jim

    Robert and Rene-
    Thanks for responding.
    I don’t believe my statement is false. The trend, even from 1960, for sunspot activity has been downward.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SIDC%20AnnualSunspotNumberSince1700.gif
    or
    http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html

    The data is from SDIC. And it covers through 2010. The 11 year average shows a decline, certainly from 1960 and also from 1980. And during this period global temperatures have gone up. The point remains that while sunspot activity was in fact lessening, global temperatures have been rising. Even with some recent years showing cooler temperatures, any graph of temperature anomaly shows the trend remains upward.
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/Climate-is-changing/~/media/CSIROau/Images/Maps%20%20Graphs/GlobalTempRecords_CAF_ind/Main.ashx

  • Rene Borbon

    Jim-

    The third graph you reference is very misleading because the left axis says, ‘Global mean temperature anomaly (C), relative to 1961-1990’. Why is this misleading? Because of the following reasons:

    1. Using a 30 year recent time frame is a very very small data set of temperatures to establish as a mean.
    2. Notice how the temperature chart has the classic hockey stick upwards beyond 1990? Well the reason for that is that the post 1990 temperature lines depend upon the small data set referenced in 1 above – which is a surefire way to ensure that post 1990 data charts show radical anomaly or deviation. In other words, if you compared any two data points, it is not unusual expect large deviation from one another due to sample size. However, if you compare a large data set and any single data point, you will expect much less variation due to the sample size.

    Elementary statistics. I aced statistics in graduate school. This is basic stuff. I make a living creating meaningful and truthful business intelligence graphs based upon real world data and statistical analysis. These hockey stick graphs are misleading, at best, dishonest at worst. The right approach to picking a mean is to select a large data set that is universally agreed upon as typical, but since most of us haven’t been around to observe the climate for more than a couple decades, how can we agree on what is normal climate? Especially since different regions of the Earth go through different warming and cooling period, independently?

    So we are left with the data we have observed in the recent past, which indicates, despite CO2 levels rising from 360 ppm to more than 390 ppm, for the time period in question, so-called global warming has stopped.

    The UK Met Office has reported no increase in global warming in 15 years:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46195019#.Tyd6HoHQeuI

    And, this is despite that CO2 in our atmosphere has risen dramatically:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    So, why has the climate not gotten warmer? Is it because the Sun produces a greater influence on the climate than NASA claims? If CO2 rises more than 10% in these ten years in the graph, and solar activity drops, and global temperature’s don’t rise, well then ta-da! — you have your answer!

    And, my previous question still stands – how is it that the last ice age ended with warming? Was it Neanderthal man’s creation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    What we need to produce is a long term chart of global temperature changes and then consider the climate variation in this frame of mind — not make extravagant claims we cannot prove or disprove, which is that the Sun influences climate less (10% according to NASA) than CO2.

  • wade

    all of this abundance of cO2 in earths atmosphere is a measured amount of roughly 2% increase of total volume. to rant about this or pass laws dealing with this subject is pure ludicrous. next one of you will be screaming about an “energy crisis”. What part of 6th grade science did all of you miss.

  • wade

    my point is, we have not put a dent in any climate change and the changes in temperature average is a result of a natural climatic cycle that has existed on this planet for countless time. the hooplah is another avenue of brainwashed control of the masses and will result in stricter rulings that only further reduce your bank account through legislation n applied measures that increase your personal operating cost.

  • wade

    this and other reasons is why pure science is not reported in mainstream media. and i further, the very reason that other things are not disclosed.

  • Rene –

    The Daily Mail horrendously misstated what the Met had put out, almost to the point of criminal negligence. The Met has put out another release in response to the DM article, http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

    They clearly decided to ignore long term climactic trends in favor of short term weather trends that support their position. This is known as cherry picking, and an example of how this works can be found here http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html which shows, amongst other things, how short term down trends can be pulled from a long term up trend. Taken over many decades, the Earth is warming up, not cooling off.

    Robert & Rene – The Sun does have an effect on the climate, but it is not the only factor. Furthermore, the Sun is relatively stable, with decade to decade variation in output not more than a few percent of total output. It’s like the difference between sitting ten feet from a bonfire and sitting ten feet from a bonfire AND a candle. The candle, while having an effect, will not drastically effect the heat we feel. Similarly, the Sun’s variance is not enough to drastically effect global temperatures. According to this paper (the Met again) http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=422939&SubjectId=2 even if the Sun reaches the Maunder minimum (the lowest total Solar activity yet recorded), it would have a grand total of 0.13C cooling effect. But as I said, the Sun is not the only factor effecting our climate, and this cooling effect will be offset by other factors. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html

    Wade – If you were 2% anthrax by volume you’d be dead. Saying that the air is only 2% CO2, and therefore CO2 can’t be having an effect is like saying you can’t be poisoned in small doses.

  • Jim

    Thanks Rene for a reasoned response.
    Then I must ask you, you agree with my first post above that the article in question in Roberts post, was suspect because they drew conclusions on just 15 years? As all the graphs show, there have been previous 10 or 15 year periods where temperatures have declined, yet over decades the trend is still upward.
    That would be using a large data set as opposed to a small data set.

  • Rene Borbon

    Jim-

    I appreciate a reasoned argument. The issue is the time scale used for the mean. We cannot use decades for the mean, we must use thousands of years or even millions of years. Most of the graphs I’ve seen are based on 1850 and forward, which is the time frame when which the Little Ice Age ended, as the MailOnline article mentions. Relevant.

    This link well illustrates the peril in using the mid 1800s or even the mid 1900s as a baseline mean – describing how climate has changed over centuries, even thousands of years.

    http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm

    What I’m saying is: you cannot use either the 1850s or the 1960s for a baseline for temperature or global climate changes.

    Mr. Zimmerman’s original post is still relevant because while CO2 levels has risen dramatically, the data collected and published by the warming claimants show there has been essentially no warming in the past 15 years. As for the longer term view — relative to 1850, the global temperatures have risen because the baseline is based on a time period when the Earth was coming out of a cooling cycle. You cannot use such a short time period as a baseline.

    The global warming crowd says more CO2 means more warming, which isn’t supported by the last 15 years of data, or the past 1500 years.

    http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/timeline.htm

    Now that I’ve answered your question– please answer these:

    1. What caused the global warming that is widely accepted to have occurred with the end of the last ice age (peak approximately 18,000 years ago)?

    2. What can be attributed to the warming that allowed vineyards to be grown in northern England in the Roman era and the subsequent cooling of the Earth’s climate?

    3. What scientific evidence exists that directly supports NASA’s claim that the Sun influences global temperatures no more than 10%, yet CO2 and greenhouse gases have more influence?

    Respectfully.

  • Rene Borbon

    Mr. Catalyst-

    I read the Met Office’s response to the article. I was not moved by their denial that their own data show no warming in the past 15 years. The basic problem I’ve outlined for Jim is the selection of the mean temperature time period, which skews the graph upward.

    Let’s focus here— the issue is COs has risen dramatically, according to NOAA, yet temperatures have not risen in 15 years. How do you or the Met explain that?

    These global warming arguments are so old. I can produce a misleading graph on an arbitrary temperature mean also — to prove a point. What exactly is a global mean, normal temperature? Could we get any scientists to agree on that? Well no, because climate has been changing constantly for all of history.

    Fact is, we all know that weather forecasts are not reliable beyond 3 or 4 days, although we might be able to say that it will probably be cold in the winter. I find it amusing that the Met Office predicts the Maunder minimum will produce exactly no more than 0.13 degrees decline in temperature.

    The extraordinary claim has not been supported by scientific evidence, at all.

  • Rene Borbon

    By the way — once more thing.

    Any article that starts out with claiming that specific scientists are deniers, I automatically dismiss out of hand as unreliable due to the fact this is use of an ad-hominem fallacy attack.

    Serious science would not attack the person but consider and attack the facts. And the facts presented supporting global warming are very much in question.

    Stick to the science and avoid the dogma, and terms like deniers. That reeks of religion.

  • Jim

    Rene, help me out here.
    You say NOAA says that the last 15 years temperatures have not risen. From what I see, that is not true. It is true that they said temps have not risen in the US in the past 15 years, but that is not global temperature.
    NOAA says the past decade has been the warmest on record for global temperatures, with two years tying for the hottest on record. And 11 of the warmest years have been in the past 13.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GMkD4mFrFxw/TS5jmsHHZGI/AAAAAAAAEPo/cTAlX3-anuA/s1600/hOTTEST%2BYEAR%2B2010.gif

  • Rene Borbon

    Jim-

    I cited NOAA’s CO2 data, not the temperature data. It the Met Office’s temperature data for the past 15 years which show temperature for the globe has not risen despite records levels of CO2. But I suspect the Met’s numbers are cooked as well. The satellite data seems to be the least biased.

  • Rene Borbon

    If your redraw this chart for the past 15 years only versus CO2 as measured by NOAA, where’s the warming? Again, another hockey stick graph based on an arbitrary temperature mean.

  • Rene Borbon

    Jim-

    You keep rolling out temperature graphs that are based upon a short time frame and start with the end of the Little Ice Age. Yet, you choose to ignore my questions about past cooling and warming. I’m getting the impression you don’t want to acknowledge any climate change in past eras.

    Why is that?

  • Jim

    Thanks, Rene.
    I checked out the Met and they do seem to agree with NOAA, although the high does not reach the high they recorded in the 90’s.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

    They do say
    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”
    Just wanted to make sure.

  • Rene Borbon

    A whole 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 19th century! Wow! That’s very little climate change if the data can be trusted. I believe you should begin to see the problem with the data and the graphs.

    If you want to make a separate argument that we should reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, I might go along with you. But I would like to know the cost benefit proposition.

    Respectfully.

  • Jim

    Fair enough. Lets consider, and I’ll just tell you my point of view, and I recognize it is not yours. The hypothesis that I accept is that since the industrial revolution (when we started to add man-made C02 to the air), there has been a sharp change in temperature upward which, when considered with past history of temperature record keeping, seems like an anomaly.
    Have there been past warming and cooling periods in history when temperatures were not recorded? Of course, and of course they were not caused by man.
    But that does not mean we should ignore the facts now. There has been an increase in global temperatures in the past 100 years or so, and that has been coupled with an increase in man-made C02. That is enough to make me take notice.
    And not being a climate scientist, I do rely on scientific opinion. And I will not bore you with things I have already posted here, but I firmly believe that the consensus of scientific opinion is on my side when I say the warming is primarily caused by man, and that it would be a good thing to do something about it. 100% of all scientists? No. But a clear majority, and a majority that I think is growing.
    The costs of waiting to do something about it are too great, most importantly for my kids. I cannot take that risk.
    I know you would not agree. So be it. Peace.

  • Rene – I would call your attention to this graph( http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/compare_datasets.png?w=459&h=326 ), taken from the Met’s press release, made not just from the Met/UEA HadCRUT3, but also from NASA’s GISS and NOAA’s NCDC, all showing a marked warming during this past century. The Met’s data shows warming, as does two other, independent data sets.

    As for the skewing problem, you’re absolutely right. By focusing on just the past 15 years (1998 being one of the hottest years on record) you completely distort the long term trend of warming. The average temperature for the past 15 years is warmer than the average for the previous 15, which is itself warmer than the 15 years previous to it. You are the one skewing the figures by focusing on a decade and a half when the warming trend has been happening for multiple decades. I call your attention to this graph from the skeptical science link above that show how short term cooling trends can be pulled from a long term warming trend. I am loath to repeat myself, but you seemed to miss the point of the graph the first time around. Which is ironic, since you’re guilty of exactly what you’re accusing others of doing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

    As for explaining the past 15 years, I’ve already covered some of it. First off, no one is claiming that the average global temperature will consistently rise year after year. Second, by choosing to start your observations with the hottest year on record you are guaranteeing your graph will show a downward trend. this would be true if that hottest year was a hundred degrees above average, with all the following years being ninety five degrees above average. You would still see a downward trend, a ‘cooling off’, but you’d still be ninety five degrees hotter than average. Same here. By starting with 1998 you are guaranteeing a downward trend. But this ‘trend’ belies the truth of the matter – the years following 1998 have been hotter than the years preceding 1998. It is true that, on average, the years after 1998 have been cooler than 1998. Just as the ’90s were cooler than the 2000’s. Just as the 80’s were cooler than the 70’s.

    You claim that there is no scientific evidence in support of climate change.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C6
    You’re claim is false.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    Completely
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
    and utterly
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
    false.
    http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/pdf/q1c.pdf

    There are many who deny that people are causing the climate to warm up. They often say that there is no evidence, and repeat this as though it were a religious mantra. Despite the mountains of evidence in support of the theory, going back to the fundamentals of physics and chemistry. They claim that there is a deliberate attempt to misinform people, despite how this would require a conspiracy of truly astronomical proportions. They claim this is for money, as though a)scientists are in it for the money and b) that 97% of climate scientists, from around the world, different countries, different institutions, different background, all decided to lie for some grant money. Or of course, they’re telling the truth, which is a much simpler explanation of why so many climatologists agree on this. Yes, there is indeed a _consensus_ amongst climatologists, and no, it’s not due to conspiracy or money or any of the other tired, old, and multiple times discredited arguments.

  • Jim

    Well, yeah. Lets agree on that- reduce C02. I live by the ocean, and ocean acidification from C02 has been a serious problem here.
    As far as cost-benefit, a while back I had posted some links to Munich Re, one of the largest insurance companies in the world. And they are believers in man’s contribution to climate change and global warming, and proponents of doing something about it.
    You don’t get more focused on numbers and cost/benefit analyses than an insurance company, and years ago that was one of the things that made me take notice. Anyway, have a great evening. I think we are wearing each other out (at least I am sure I am wearing you out!).

  • Rene Borbon

    Thanks Jim for your perspective. I am trying to persuade you that there is indeed, very little to no supporting evidence that so-called man-made CO2 is causing any warming. My point is, take the long view and be scientifically skeptical of grand claims that industrialization is causing any warming. There is no linkage or evidence to support this.

    As for CO2 caused by industrial activity, I’d be interested in any non-biased studies which clearly show the CO2 in the atmosphere has its origins in industrial activity, and not is a result of changes in the chemistry of the oceans (or other causes). And I’d like to see those studies on a geologic time scale of tens of thousands of years. I’d hazard a guess, without research that during the time of the dinosaurs, that methane and CO2 levels were much higher than during the last ice age. But maybe I’m wrong.

    The extravagant claim is that the Sun influences global temperature no more 10% (NASA) and that we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars (or trillions) in technologies to reduce greenhouse gases, when we haven’t taken the long term view and identified with a certainty CO2 has an industrial origin.

    I’m completely for pollution abatement and elimination — but the state of global warming science is just not there yet.

    A healthy dialogue and less name calling on both sides would do science well and we’d all benefit. I’ve learned from you and I hope I caused you to consider things on the geologic time scale, rather than the short human life span we’re limited with. As always, as new information comes to light, I reserve the right to change my mind. At this time however, call me a climate change denier.

  • Jim

    It was a healthy dialog indeed, Rene! Thanks for sharing and I continue to learn. Peace. At the end of the day, I hope you are the one that is right.
    Now on to a fun evening…

  • Catalyst

    Edit: Typo – Just as the 80’s were cooler than the 70’s 90’s. As an aside, my comment is still ‘awaiting moderation’, which works out well since that comment and my edit of it will hopefully appear at the same time.

  • Rene Borbon

    Mr. Catalyst-

    Members of the IPCC don’t agree with one another and many have been discredited in the media for falsifying or misleadng information. With reference to the NASA site with the CO2 some thoughts:

    NASA’s site says the evidence is compelling, but that is not the same as conclusive. Look up compelling in a dictionary.

    NASA’s site says, ‘Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.’

    Very interesting in that in this statement, I agree with them, large changes in climate have happened very quickly. But this describes what happened, not conclusively why.

    Didnyou read the NOAA news statement you reference carefully? They use the statement, ‘why we are so confident…’. Really? I am supposed to beleive as fact whatever they say because they are so confident? Have you ever studied and used the scientific method in a rigorous environment? I would never make a scientific study and say I’m confident about my conclusion. I would want to know with an observed certainty that my results are sound.

    Fine to argue that I reference a graph showing the supposedly hottest year in 150 years, but the fact stubbornly remains, CO2 has increased more than 10% and temperatures have not risen in 15 years. Facts are stubborn aren’t they?

    What we are left with is simply an extraordinary claim. The Sun produces only 10% of warming on the Earth. And that CO2 (no proof of origin of the CO2), is producing up to 90% of the warming. No evidence admittable that would be conclusive in a court of law or even science that CO2 from tail pipes, your lungs, my lungs, or factories are warming the Earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 150 years.

    Even if I accept your claim, the Earth has warmed about degree Fahrenheit in 150 years. So what? How much was it warmer dueing the Medieval Warm Period? How much warmer was it when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth? At this rate, it would take 1,500 years for the planet to warm 10 degrees. But then again, a series of volcanic eruptions might reverse any warming.

    It is not I that must definitvely disprove an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the claimant. And that person is you Mr. Catalyst.

  • Jim

    Catalyst-
    I thought that graph from Skeptical Science was very interesting.
    One thing it highlighted for me that I had not seen before was this:
    Notice how in each period of decline, the slope of decline has been flattening out? The current period of decline is almost flat.
    Very interesting.

  • Yes, people have been discredited. In the media. And the were exonerated every time. But the ‘liberal’ media didn’t report that, only the stolen emails and their out of context blurbs.
    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/08/23/Climate-scientist-exonerated-over-research/UPI-33081314144395/
    http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/08/27/nsf-psu-mann-exonerated/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

    Compelling, def. C: Convincing
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compelling

    “… the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” They didn’t say, ‘we’re confident so believe us’. They said what their reasons for being confident were. No one is asking you to take them at there word. They supply the compelling evidence that supports their claims.

    You would never say you were confident about your conclusions from a scientific study? That may be the problem. You have no confidence in the scientific method.

    Yes, facts are stubborn. Like the fact that the average temperature for the past 15 years is higher than the average from the previous 15 years, which is in turn higher than the 15 years previous to it. That means the Earth is warming, a fact. Like the heat trapping effects of CO2, which have been understood for over a century. And once again, short term trends can belie the long term trend. A period of 15 years is not long enough to make a claim about an over all trend. As the skeptical science graph points out, there are many times during the past 40 years when one could claim ‘Aha! It hasn’t warmed up recently, therefore global warming is false’. But, time and time again, they were proven wrong when the temperatures continued to climb.

    The Medieval warm period was a regional affair, not a global phenomenon. The average temperature during the Mesozoic Era was 3-4 degrees C warmer, with an average of 6-7 times atmospheric CO2, as compared to pre-industrial levels. So, more CO2, warmer temperatures. How AMAZING! What stubborn things these facts are!

    “No evidence admittable that would be conclusive in a court of law or even science that CO2 from tail pipes, your lungs, my lungs, or factories are warming the Earth by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 150 years.” According to you. You don’t find such evidence compelling. You want me to take you at your word. That does not mean that scientists, you know, those people who deal with facts, don’t find the evidence to be admissible.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html

    Yes, if we experienced a number of large volcanic eruptions, we would probably have a noticeable cooling period. But after a few years the gas and dust would fall out of the atmosphere, the cooling would stop, and we would continue the warming trend. Why? Because the CO2 would still be in the air.

    Just because you won’t accept the proof does not mean that I did not successfully dispute your counter claim. The earth is warming, and it is caused by us (as much as that sucks). But we will have little progress in alleviating the problem so long as people continue to confuse buzzwords, rhetoric, and talking points with real evidence. You know, those stubborn, stubborn facts.

  • Jim,
    Yeah, I’d noticed that too. I hadn’t mentioned it because that’s an easy path to rhetorical argument, and science is not about rhetoric or argumentation but fact. But it is very interesting, how each ‘cooling’ period is experiencing less cooling then the previously claimed ‘cooling’ period. Which may be why those who deny global warming (nee climate change) are saying that the rising trend in global temperatures has stopped. Which, rhetorically, is a tacit admission of climate change, albeit that it has recently stopped. Now, I doubt that most deniers (note for Rene: I use the term in accordance with the first, benign, definition of ‘epithet’, not the malicious definition. Merriam-Webster again) would say that that was what they intended. I can only hope that most warmists (note for Rene: See previous note) will not succumb to easy rhetorical flourish, and rely on facts, figures, and science for the foundation of their argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *